With the result of the recent election,
it seems more than ever that there are some issues with people.
Often there have been issues which it does not seem to make sense the position
that Liberals take,
but to see how bend out of shape over the election seems to make it extremely
clear that there is a problem with them.

Let's start with an easy one: Voter ID laws.

Liberals claim that anyone who pushes voter ID laws are racist,
as well as claiming that there is no voter fraud,
so there is no reason for the laws.
Why don't they understand that if you can't ask to see an ID for someone who is
voting then you have absolutely no means of knowing who exactly is voting and
no means of being able to determine if there is voter fraud or not?

The racist claim is a bit more interesting.
Why is it that Liberals don't seem to think that certain people have IDs and
don't have the ability to get IDs?
If they don't have an ID,
how exactly have they gotten by in life?
You need an ID to get a job,
open a bank account, etc.,
so who exactly would not have an ID?
Doesn't the claim that certain races don't have an ID and are not able to get
one seem to be quite racist?

One common Liberal claim of racism is in regards to anyone who asks about
Obama's birth certificate.
They say that it is racist since Obama is the only one who has ever been asked
for a birth certificate.
Since being a citizen is required to be President,
what is wrong with asking for proof?
Then there is the other reality aspect in that John McCain was asked for his
birth certificate because there was some question as to where exactly he was
born.
So the claim that Obama was the only one asked means the basis for the racist
claim is bogus.
The problem is that you can never get Liberals to accept this and they keep
repeating their lines like a parrot.

There was an interesting discussion with a person who made claims about the
recent election.
There were many aspects which showed that he was not in touch with reality,
but some of the more interesting aspects was the things that he made up.

One thing that he got wrong was that he seemed to think that there was one
election,
but the reality is that there were 51 separate elections (each state and
Washington DC).
He also thought that all the ballots were the same.
But it got more interesting when he claimed that people ONLY vote for the
person they want to be president.
No one ever votes for a candidate to make a statement,
like for a third party candidate.
He also said that knowing that the state in which you live and knowing that a
given candidate is going to win will NEVER affect how a person votes.
Even when he was told that it affected how a person voted,
the denial was that you could never prove that there was another person made a
change in how they voted.

It also got good when he wanted to make claims about what the votes meant.
Since he knew why people voted,
only for the candidate that they wanted as president,
that meant that because Trump did not win the popular vote Trump is unpopular.
It does not matter that if you look at the CA election,
more than the difference in vote exists right there.
In CA there was really no reason to vote for Trump as he was never going to win
there,
but this guy refuses to accept that as he is locked into Trump being unpopular.
I am not sure how you can consider someone to not be popular when he won more
states,
which is what really counted in order to win the Electoral College,
and more counties across the country.
Trump won states in which Hillary was expected to win,
but that means nothing.

The bottom line is that there was no way to convince this person that he could
not assign meaning to the popular vote the way he wanted to.
What the vote really showed is that Trump is not popular in Liberal big cities.

Trump was asked if he would accept the election results and said that he would
have to wait and see,
which is the only reasonable answer.
If you were to see an issue,
then you would want to reserve your right to contest the election,
just like Al Gore did.
The liberals went wild and attacked Trump for this and made all sorts of claims
as to what it meant about him.
So then can someone explain why all of that does not apply to the Liberals who
refuse to accept the election results?

Just for the record,
I am not a Trump supporter.

Here is an interesting meme which shows a clear problem with reality for
Liberals.
The title is
"Trump unites America against Trump".
If you add up the numbers,
it comes to 1.7 million.
There is slightly more than that in the United States.
To somehow claim that some protests show that America is united against Trump
is quite absurd,
to say the least.
But it seems that they need to make such bizarre claims in order to make
themselves feel better.

Can any sane person explain how such a small protest can hope to claim that
America is united against Trump?

Another aspect to consider is illegal aliens.
An illegal alien violates the law when the illegally cross the border.
They seem to get bend out of shape when it is mentioned to put up a wall to
stop this illegal action,
although there are better solutions in my opinion.
They don't get that if an illegal alien works in the US,
then it is illegal.
They would either have to work under the table or commit identity theft in
order to work.
In either case it is unlikely that that are paying the proper taxes,
which means tax evasion,
which is also illegal.
Elected officials sworn into office saying that they will uphold ALL laws,
yet they seem to think that it is acceptable to ignore the laws which they
don't like.
They also don't seem to be able to determine the difference between legal
immigration and illegal immigration.

So if Liberals can not accept reality,
isn't that a sign of a mental problem?

L.A.R.D. (Liberalism Alternate Reality Disorder)

With the recent election,
as well as with interviews with Liberals,
it is quite clear that there is a problem with Liberals and reality.
I recently saw an interview in which the person stated that it was acceptable
and even their duty to cause damage in order to protest the things that they
don't like.
This was in regards to the riots in Berkeley.
What seems clear to me is that Liberals can't stand to hear an alternate point
of view since it would prove their position wrong.
So they have to yell, scream, and do anything in order to silence rational
thought.
It is much the same as a child who puts their hands over their ears and talk
and say that they can't hear you.
If you call a Liberal on the things that they are making up,
they will lie and make things up,
as well as do anything to prevent you from saying things that they can't
accept.

Some are using the term "TDS" (Trump Derangement Syndrome),
but this is really not accurate since there are many more things that Liberals
are not rational about.
Examples of this are Democrats such as Biden and Schumer saying that it is
unacceptable for a President to nominate a person to the Supreme Court within a
year of the election,
but when the Republicans do what they said,
they get bent out of shape and make up all sorts of claims,
but especially forgetting what they had previously said.
Gun control is another example in which they have to ignore the facts.
Often Liberals have armed security to protect them,
so the reality is that they just don't want you to be able to protect yourself.
It is very important to a Liberal for people to forget what they previously
said when the tables are turned.

I have had a couple of conversations with Liberals and there seems to be a
common trait.
They will make a comment like "Trump lies all the time".
Then,
when you ask for an example,
you get a response like "it would take too long to list all of them".
So then you say, give me a few examples.
The response is silence.

Then there is the claim that the liberal media never lies.
How do you take someone seriously when they say that the media is always
honest?

Say anything?

On Tucker Carlson on 31-Jan-2018,
there was a usual liberal guest with the first name of Austin.
I did not get the spelling of his last name.
He said something quite funny and I guess I learned something from him.
In a feeble attempt to justify rewarding those who come here illegally,
he claimed that a child in the back seat of a vehicle which is speeding is also
violating the law,
but that we don't go after such a child.
This means that according to him,
the police could ticket EVERYONE in the vehicle if the driver is exceeding the
speed limit.
That is not how it works.

Another thing that I noticed,
which was on another day,
is that often when the liberals talk about the steps to make those who are here
illegally become legal they typically say that the person needs to pay back
taxes.
They also say that they only thing that the person has done is to come here
illegally,
sometimes due to their parents.
But if that is true,
then why in the world would they need to pay back taxes?
They would only need to pay back taxes if they evaded paying taxes by not
paying what they owed,
which the last I checked is illegal.

Also,
with those pushing to make those who qualify under DACA legal,
I have a simple question.
I could ask why someone who violates the law should be rewarded.
I could ask why the the parents who brought them here should not be blamed,
afterall if a criminal broke into a house with children,
you would still throw them all out.
I could ask many more questions,
but the question I have is while I feel sorry for those children who were
brought here illegally,
what are we supposed to do about the 2 year old who is brought here tomorrow?
Do we not feel sorry for them?
Where does it end?
Anyone supporting such things should have a plan to completely deal with it
and not just keep rewarding those who violate the law.
You can feel sorry for someone,
but still not reward them for illegal actions.

There was is also another liberal line which is quite interesting.
The are those who are claiming that Russia could have affected the election,
but that the FBI could not have affected the election in terms of harming
Trump,
only Hillary.
Amazing how that works.